Moments of Permanence - Back to Patricia Wrede and the Thirteenth Child: You Haven't Read This Post!

From: delfinnium Date: May 12th, 2009 03:51 am (UTC) (Link)

I am always disinclined to trust White Scientist theories, especially when it somehow involves the 'Whites are better' or 'those natives did it to themselves, natch'.

(and it includes the 90% lactose intolerance thing in Asians, because. Um. Bubble tea phenomen? loooooads of Ice-cream everywhere? Growing up in my OWN COUNTRY without anyone being damn lactose intolerant? Or do they just mean 'unable to drink a gallon of milk in one sitting'? I cannot find any stats, people, that does not just yank numbers out of the air. I've tried looking at my own country's research aaaand there's nothing. No research done, just quoting from US based papers. Which, again, lack methodology. Sorry, tangent over)

There is critiquing a text based on the entire PREMISE, such as 'What if the Indians never made it there and therefore let the mammoths survive so white people can come along and colonise it?' and the details such as 'this character walked down the river and met a highly intelligent mammoth which, apparently named itself Clever Fox.' or something. Both are relevant, but when someone is rejecting a text, or critiquing it based on the books ENTIRE premise, it is a damn valid thing and there is noneed to read the damn book. Unless someone comes along and says, "Hey, I read it, and she REALLY did some damn good things with the premise, which was dodgy, but it turned out she really made it less offensive!"

I think. Or. Um. This is me trying to say, "You're right".

(Reply) (Thread)

From: sami Date: May 12th, 2009 04:33 am (UTC) (Link)

Indeed. I think my break point is when you're seeing generalised conclusions about ethnic or cultural groups based on data that isn't readily available - and by that I mean I want real data, because lying with statistics is trivially easy. (Statistics are valuable - you just need to look at them critically.) Or where the data is visible but the methodology is hidden. Jack that noise.

Obviously, as a Person of Pallor (well, I have a moderately ruddy complexion and a light tan, but you get the idea), it would be problematic for me to dismiss all things that are the product of White People - especially with that whole "historian" thing I have going. But critical thinking, I'm capable of it, you know?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: delfinnium Date: May 12th, 2009 04:40 am (UTC) (Link)

Considering that numbers that just say, Asians are 90% intolerant!!! I don't think that even counts as statistics. Methodology, it's very important. Sampling populations even more so.

(This is totes relevant. really)

It's not so much that I think we should dismiss it all - but the ability to look critically? yes.

I know that my own country's history is problematic - a country with only j40+ years of history? It wasn't UNPOPULATED before the British decided Singapore would make a good port of call. But there's precious little out there about it, even Malaysia only has official history to about 1950s. Which plainly, leaves much to be desired.

(Reply) (Parent)

From: rivenwanderer Date: May 12th, 2009 05:42 am (UTC) The "interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!" thing (Link)

Yeah, I think that RaceFail (the whole thing, not just the Wrede stuff) keeps bumping up against an idea that has not entirely caught on with writers: that there is more than one kind of conversation to have about a book. Some kinds of conversation require that some or all of the book has been read, but some kinds of conversation work equally well given some reasonable summaries and facts passed on from other readers. And that not all "criticism" of a book or its tropes/premise is "criticism" in the academic sense, but it is not automatically invalidated because of that.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From: delfinnium Date: May 12th, 2009 06:28 am (UTC) Re: The "interrogating the text from the wrong perspective!" thing (Link)

Exactly!

(Reply) (Parent)